Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add moonlight-lupin/agent-skills --skill build-review-loopgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/moonlight-lupin/agent-skillsWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/moonlight-lupin/agent-skills/build-review-loop)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/moonlight-lupin/agent-skills/build-review-loop"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/moonlight-lupin/agent-skills/build-review-loop/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/moonlight-lupin/agent-skills/build-review-loop"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/moonlight-lupin/agent-skills/build-review-loop.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00063 | $0.15065 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00025 | $0.06026 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.03013 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.01507 |
Grade A, and why
build-review-loop scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured today.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 776 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Build-Review Loop
Orchestrate N rounds of build → review → fix → re-review using different models for building vs reviewing (cross-model diversity). The orchestrator (Hermes) manages the loop, verifies independently, and delivers structured reviews.
MANDATORY: delegate the build — never hand-code mid-loop
User correction: "didnt see you using cursor cli". The orchestrator started hand-writing fixes in the repo instead of dispatching Cursor. That violates this skill's core contract even when the fix is small. Non-trivial dev work means: orchestrator writes a spec file, Cursor (user's default: cursor-grok-4.6-high, --force) implements, orchestrator verifies independently, Codex/Claude/Cursor review, iterate. Hand-editing is only acceptable for trivial mechanical fixes (a typo, a one-line version bump) — and even then, say so explicitly when deviating. If unsure whether it counts as non-trivial, delegate.
See also references/generated-frontmatter-and-reviewer-outages.md — reviewer-lane outage substitution pattern + the f-string YAML frontmatter double-failure class (:/# scalars break YAML; safe_dump default width wraps it) + the untracked-files reviewer trap.
See also references/persistent-loop-plan.md — multi-session or multi-batch loops: loop state lives in loop-*.md files, not memory; resume with scripts/loop_plan_check.py, attest briefs with scripts/attest_file.py. Ported from planning-with-files; the native plugin was NOT installed (see references/planning-with-files-adaptation.md).
See also references/evidence-pairs.md — every delivered batch carries a before/after evidence pair (screenshot, measured number, or output pair), embedded in the PR body or delivery message. Ported from michaelshimeles/skills.
See also references/mobile-app-verification.md — APK/dex/baked-config artifact verification gates, version stamping, the 4-layer Android WebView network stack (cleartext / mixed-content / ws scheme / CORS), backgrounded-JavaScript login-death bugs, multi-round review convergence on lifecycle code.
See also references/sync-pipeline-review-patterns.md — reviewing app ↔ external-source-of-truth sync code (Google Sheets, SaaS mirrors): fetch-inside-lock, status-clear scoping to processed snapshots, append reconcile/marker placement under dynamic column maps, blank-cell semantics, static-path auth whitelists.
See also references/review-findings-adjudication.md — adjudicating reviewer BLOCKINGs against the dispatch spec (dismiss with cause, never silently), the four recurring test-quality findings (hook-bypass, loose string-greps, single-open DOM tests, over-broad state selectors) and their fixes, and fix-round routing back to the builder.
See also references/production-reachability-review.md — the dead-feature cluster: public functions with tests but zero production callers (unreachable user stories while the suite stays green), test-only enrichment kwargs the runtime never passes, and the per-batch grep pass that catches it.
See also references/extraction-from-filled-docs.md — fill-template extraction domain depth: fingerprint/structural context, collapse ordering + XML validity + unclaimed-content preservation, path-escape and hardlink guards, and the reviewer traps for extraction code.
What ships with it
41 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
- references/architecture-refactor-test-updates.md 2.9 KB
- references/background-build-polling.md 3.9 KB
- references/beta-gate-release-hardening.md 3.3 KB
- references/ci-and-repo-hygiene.md 3.7 KB
- references/cross-model-parallel-review.md 4.8 KB
- references/data-integrity-principles.md 7.3 KB
- references/delegate-skills-adaptation.md 2.0 KB
- references/dispatch-result-contract.md 3.5 KB
- references/evidence-pairs.md 2.5 KB
- references/extraction-from-filled-docs.md 6.1 KB
- references/feature-build-brief.md 2.8 KB
- references/field-briefing-integration.md 5.2 KB
- references/fix-brief-template.md 9.6 KB
- references/full-module-replacement-scoping.md 6.3 KB
- references/generated-frontmatter-and-reviewer-outages.md 3.0 KB
- references/mcp-category-tool-implementation.md 5.3 KB
- references/mcp-design-review-patterns.md 5.7 KB
- references/minified-bundle-selector-research.md 4.4 KB
- references/mobile-app-verification.md 4.8 KB
- references/multi-batch-sequencing.md 5.7 KB
- references/parallel-dual-review.md 11 KB
- references/persistent-loop-plan.md 6.9 KB
- references/pitfalls-dispatch-semantics.md 6.3 KB
- references/pitfalls-fix-round-verification.md 6.6 KB
- references/planning-with-files-adaptation.md 2.6 KB
- references/plugin-gates-and-fix-rounds.md 4.2 KB
- references/production-reachability-review.md 5.0 KB
- references/reconciliation-review-findings.md 3.1 KB
- references/rest-api-review-checklist.md 13 KB
- references/retired-red-flags-archive.md 6.7 KB
- references/review-findings-adjudication.md 34 KB
- references/scope-test-in-process-execution.md 4.2 KB
- references/security-property-tests.md 14 KB
- references/sqlite-migration-pitfalls.md 4.1 KB
- references/sqlite-wal-review-findings.md 5.0 KB
- references/sync-pipeline-review-patterns.md 13 KB
- references/tool-mechanics-pitfalls.md 44 KB
- references/upgrade-path-test-pattern.md 3.0 KB
- scripts/attest_file.py 2.7 KB runs code
- scripts/capture_dispatch_result.py 3.6 KB runs code
- scripts/loop_plan_check.py 3.8 KB runs code
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- today First seen · 776 lines · 63 tokens per session scan A 24121c325296
build-review-loop is a skill published in the GitHub repository moonlight-lupin/agent-skills (101 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 63 tokens to every session and 15,065 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-10-17.
Other skills, from other repositories
loopx-pr-review
Use for /loopx-pr-review or evidence-backed PR queue review. Run loopx pr-review first, execute the capability-owned review plan for each selected exact head, then publish full bilingual PR reviews (complete Chinese five-block review plus one concise English verdict) that match the verified findings. Use…
loopx-change-quality
Qualify the exact final diff for a LoopX-managed goal. Use when goal policy enables changequalityqualification, before a non-trivial delivery or merge, and when producing or repairing an exact-scope quality receipt. The workflow is language-neutral, permits at most one policy-authorized safe-fix pass, and never grants…
loopx-pr-merge
Optional maintainer workflow for the approval, merge-readiness, or authorized self-merge decision on a LoopX pull request. Requires the exact-head review evidence from loopx pr-review. Review depth, verdicts, review comments, and the published review format belong to loopx-pr-review.
comprehensive-review
Comprehensive code review using parallel specialized subagents. If a PR URL is provided, fetches PR details and can post comments. If no PR is provided, reviews the diff between the current branch and its base branch plus any uncommitted changes. CRITICAL: this skill is costly, don't use it unless user explicitly…
code-review
Review code changes for correctness, security, performance, and code quality. Use when the user asks to review a diff, review code changes, review commits, or perform a code review. Input can be: (1) a text diff pasted directly, (2) one or more git commit hashes to extract the diff from, or (3) a git range like…
zen-comprehensive-review
Orchestrate a multi-model code review: spawn 3 review subagents, merge findings. In PR mode, posts GitHub PR comments with reactions. In local mode, outputs findings directly. CRITICAL: this skill is costly, don't use it unless user explicitly requested to use it.